Declaration of War for Tiarnan

[The Great Quail]

Tiarnan writes,

>Bin Laden is not the Taliban. The Taliban are not Bin Laden. It seems,
>among the many Kute Korrespondences and dodgy elisions, that
>differences
>between the enemies are being, ever so slowly, smoothed over.

First of all, I am sorry, I misunderstood. However, I don't think 
that the distinction is really all that significant. Osama bin Laden 
supports the Taliban financially and spiritually; al-Qaeda and the 
Taliban share numerous resources (and, let's face it, probably 
members!); and the Taliban have publicly supported him both in words 
and deeds. What more can you ask for? The Taliban have chosen to 
stand by this man and what he represents; and a very, very vocal part 
of that is Jihad against the United States.

I have not read the "dossier," however; but thanks for the link. I 
certainly see your point, and I will read through the public evidence.

>The Taliban
>offered Bin Laden sanctuary. That does not inculpate them in the World
>Trade Centre attack.

On that point, I disagree, for the same reasons I enumerated above.

>As to bin Laden's declaration of war on the US... I've read it with
>interest. His main beef with the US seems to be their occupation of
>Saudi Arabia on behalf of the hopelessly unpopular and corrupt Fahd
>dynasty.

Which is a fair "beef." It's all the other stuff I have an issue 
with, such as the call for our destruction, the withdrawal of support 
for Israel, and so on. He has set himself up to be some sort of Mahdi 
figure, possessed of the desire to speak for all Muslims. While his 
beef may have validity, his methods are inappropriate, to say the 
least. I don't care if I agreed with 100% of what he said, lies and 
manipulations notwithstanding. He's an evil, psychotic fanatic, like 
so many the world has seen since the dawn of time. (And yes, some of 
them Americans.) So while your label of "Satan du jour" certainly has 
some punch, there is also the very real fact that he *is* a "Satan du 
jour."

>They evoke powerfully negative responses from
>those they treat so badly, these people bomb cafes, they act like tyrants,
>they kill civilians and call it war, they commit atrocious, inexcusable acts.

It sounds to me like you are explaining the acts of terrorists by 
saying they are, essentially, our own responsibility. While I know 
that view -- which has a bit of truth in it, of course, after all, no 
one acts in a vacuum -- is currently popular, I think it may be 
overly simplistic. Power struggles between "corrupt" secularized 
leaders and more "pure" fundamentalist elements have marked Islamic 
politics from the very beginning. Also, the concept of violent Jihad, 
which also makes no distinction between civilian and military 
targets, is also a concept fairly well known in the region. 
Additionally, the separation of church and state is not an idea that 
is endemic to Islam, and so the political waters are inextricably 
muddled by religious factions and all that entails spiritually, 
morally and ethically. The fact that the United States empowers 
certain regimes may be unfortunate, but it is hardly the root cause 
why some Moslems suddenly are driven to "bomb cafes, act like 
tyrants, kill civilians and call it war, and commit atrocious, 
inexcusable acts." (Quotes slightly altered.) It is overly simplistic 
to equate their actions directly to our policies.

And, although I know this is going to be controversial, I do think 
that part of their hatred stems from seeing us as the antithesis of 
their religion. While I think that glib statements such as "they hate 
seeing Brittney Spear's belly button" are fairly facile, I do believe 
they facetiously contain a kernel of truth. Our society represents 
the worst to them, the furthest you can go from Islam -- after all, 
unlike the heathens, we are still nominally "People of the Book." And 
therefore, seeing that we *still* behave like this makes them 
furious, because we have *rejected* their way. And our way of life is 
indeed a threat to them; it represents, to them an 
anti-fundamentalist virus that infects the people they wish to 
control through religion. You can heap all the invective you'd like 
on Western oil companies, capitalism, dirty politics, and so on; but 
there's certainly some truth in the idea that the freedoms we do 
strive for represent the death of their world-view. And that fear and 
loathing feeds into the cycle of hatred and Jihad.

>And people get caught in the middle. This is tragic. It's been going on ever
>since we descended the trees (or the sky-ladder, depending on your beliefs).

Sigh. Sad, sad, sad and true.

>What is remarkable is the babble that ensues when apologists claim that one
>or other is right, that the attack on the World Trade Centre was a vicious
>assault on a beautiful city (true) in an innocent, freedom-loving country
>(false).

False? Well, I don't feel like debating innocence; the WTC workers 
and firefighters and jet passengers are no more or less innocent than 
the Afghani civilians we are killing. Both just wish to get along 
with their day, you know? And you and I differ in that I do believe 
we love freedom here. We don't always achieve it, but we love it, and 
hold it up as an ideal, from Thomas Jefferson to Martin Luther King 
to the drag queens preparing to party down in the Village tomorrow. 
Freedom is bigger than one person; any single person is too flawed to 
really embody it. But we try, we Americans, like so many other 
countries also: the people try.

>It is as if one person has been injured, one contestant must stoop,
>stunned, before springing back into the global mud-wrestling match.

I think that is very insightful; but it is the nature of people to 
place their identity in a larger, symbolic body; granfaloon or not.

>In its anger, and its foolishness, America has decided to personify its
>grief.

Identifying the perpetrator is not a personification of grief. But of 
course, we have differing ideas on whether or not bin Laden is a 
primary motivator.

>It has named bin Laden as the Satan du jour. Unfortunately, the US
>army, designed to wage war on the Soviet Union, is sadly ill-suited for this
>kind of job. So bin Laden must be given a country, and who better to chose
>than the hapless (and barbarous) Taliban, the world's most publicly reviled
>regime.

You make it sound as if we placed bin Laden in Afghanistan! We "gave" 
him no country. (Excepting the fact, of course, we supported the 
mujahadeen against the Soviets.) I understand that you are speaking 
metaphorically, but it still seems glib to word it so incautiously.

>So the people of Afghanistan are subsumed by the Taliban, and the
>Taliban are subsumed by bin Laden. Bin Laden must die, and so therefore the
>Afghan people must die too.

Ah, but the Afghan people are not identified as the enemy, and are 
not made deliberate targets. You think this ideological distinction 
is unimportant -- which is probably is to the dead Afghanis, I am 
sure -- but I do not think it can be so casually dismissed.

>This is terribly unjust, as unjust as the attack on the World Trade Centre.
>Innocent and ignorant people will die, so that these prehistoric monsters can
>continue clawing at one another, incapable of communication. The hundreds of
>years old United States, in all of its indisoluble continuity, and the
>millenarian war-hounds of Islam.

That's quite poetic; but despite being emotionally moved, I can't 
find myself believing the conceit that we are two moral equals 
refusing to communicate. I think that does not reflect reality; I 
think it reflects an emotional state of despair. I wish there was a 
way to cripple the networks of the Jihad and make countries afraid to 
harbor them -- without violence, and without withdrawing support for 
Israel.

Best,

--Quail